Sunday, July 27, 2014

The aim of all research is to answer questions
(Robson, 2011); but unfortunately the processes, as well as the answers, are
not always that simple. There are different issues that can work to impede
and/or complicate research within and between the hard sciences (biology, chemistry,
physics, psychology and medicine) and the social sciences (criminology,
sociology, social work and psychology[i]). Within social science
orientated research, we are using social science in its broadest capacity here to
discuss any and all research that examines human participants as well as the
relationship between the self and society; and there is a vast array of
different methodologies to choose from. I would firmly place sex offender
research within this bracket. All research is about using tried and tested
methodologies to answer specific questions, which means that you need to use
the right methodology to answer the research question that you have to answer;
this can sometimes be a bone of contention (Robson, 2011; Chambers, 1999).

Within any given research project there are
often a diaspora of “interested” parties (for instance, funders, government
bodies, other stakeholders) who directly or indirectly impact upon the
research, when these “interested” parties also have a vested interest in the
research (they are funding it, supplying data or access) they will get more
vocal in promoting their viewpoint. All of these “interested” parties want the
research to say and do different things, which can be quite frustrating
(Robson, 2011; Davies, Francis & Jupp, 2011). Within sexual abuse research,
these viewpoints can become difficult to navigate. There are a lot of
“interested” parties; sexual abuse research does not exist in isolation and its
outcomes can impact a swath of professions (police, probation, prisons,
therapists, counsellors, community groups) and a number of issues (prevention,
public protection, criminal justice, treatment, risk management), all of which
can confine research practices.

In the main, when we talk about academic rigour
and research with impact, especially in the Criminal Justice field, we are
talking about inferential statistics and quantitative methodologies (NESTA). The prevailing view among both the academy and
stakeholders, especially in government, internationally is that empirical,
quantitative methodologies are the always the most appropriate approach to take
when conducting research. Interestingly, there seems to be a step away from the
traditional international governmental attitude to quantitative research and
statistics within branches of government in Canada, where the emerging attitude
seems to be that inferential statistics should not be used at all!

This international disparity throws up the real
issue, that is that judgments are being made on the viability and impact of
research based upon attitudes to methodology NOT, as it should be, attitudes to
the whole research process and how the methodology sits in respect to the
question. We should not play favorites with some methodologies, nor should we
blacklist or ostracize others out of context. We need to make sure that the
full methodological toolkit is available to us so that we can better develop
and execute appropriate research; especially given that sexual abuse is a
multi-disciplinary area and needs representation from different disciplines and
methodologies. Ultimately, we should applaud all attempts to improve our
knowledge rather than criticizing existing research because it couldn’t be of
the highest quality. This is particularly true in an era when policy-makers are
often unwilling to accept guidance from scientific findings. For instance, in
the UK the Scottish (Chan et al, 2010) and English (Kemshall et al, 2010) of
the limited disclosure scheme indicated a very low take up of the schemes, a
lack of engagement with the schemes by the public and low levels of real world
impact in policing terms all of which would indicate that the disclosure scheme
was not doing what it was supposed to did not stop the government implementing
it. A case of policy based evidence over evidence based policy maybe? There is
no question that we should want the best methodologies; and we should want to
best overall processes and options as well.

Not all methodologies suit all research
questions, regardless of what some interested parties think, and using an
inappropriate methodology will compromise the research study, impact upon the
quality of the research as well as the outcomes (Robson, 2011). For instance,

- Randomized
Control Trials
are often seen as the gold
standard in evaluation research (Robson, 2011) and have been historically, and successfully used
in social
science research,
and are now being used more often in criminal justice research (Duwe, 2012;
Singer & Cooper, 2009), as criminology is starting to become more
quantitative and experimental. However, from Larry
Sherman and Richard Berk’s domestic
violence RCT,
the first criminal justice RCT, to Grant Duwe’s (2012), both in Minnesota and
both related to interpersonal violence interestingly, the use of RCTs is better
able to polarize a group of researchers above and beyond any other methodology.
The main concern with RCT’s is that they are inferentially powerful tools and
should only be used accordingly, namely with a strong, variable and disperse
sample. Therefore using an RCT to evaluate a well-established mainstream sex
offender programme would be appropriate, relevant and useful; whereas using it
to evaluate a pilot, specialized programme with 5 participants would not. This is not to say that RCT’s should not be
used, but rather there are limits to the functionality, reliability, validity
and results that it would produce; which would problematise the results and
give a potential false negative. In
addition to the practical issues with RCTs there are also moral dilemmas as
well as ethical issues relating to alternatives to treatment, public protection
and offender care which although not limited to the sex offender field are very
pertinent to it.

- Using a purely quantitative approach to test the
effectiveness and impact of an emerging paradigm. An example would be Circles
of Support and Accountability (CoSA), where one would be better placed to use a
multi-strategy design, a case study design, or even a purely qualitative
approach to understand the processes and analysis the impact of CoSA, which,
far from a simple treatment program is a complex social phenomenon (McCartan et
al, 2014). That is to say, an RCT of CoSA should take place further down the
line when a quantitative study with an appropriate (and sizeable) sample, but
doing it with an unrepresentative or inappropriate sample would skew the
results and problematise the research. Criticizing the methodology of existing
studies too early in the research process (as has been the case in many
spheres) misses the point and risks sending the wrong message to stakeholders.

The important thing to realize is that the
choice to use a non-inferential methodology should not be seen as weakening the
coherence of the research, its outcomes or impact just because you cannot give
a level of significance to 0.05 or 0.01. If, through qualitative of case study
research, you can demonstrate that a majority of your participants experienced
a positive outcomes you are indicating that your research is having an impact,
regardless of not having a level of significance. Instead you are showing that
you are making an informed decision to use the correct methodology to answer
your research question in the most appropriate light and that your results
reflect the reality of what you are investigating. This means that the fringe
benefits of research, like contributing to evidence based policy and practice,
are realistic and grounded.

It is important to stay open minded to all forms
of research methodology and use the one best suited to your research question,
there are many ways to show success and impact so why decide to limit them.

Kieran McCartan, PhD

David S. Prescott, LICSW

References

Chambers,
A. F. (1999). What is this thing called
Science? 3rd Edition. Open University Press: Buckingham.

[i] Please note the ambiguous labeling of psychology as “hard” (i.e.,
cognitive psychology, vision and perception) and “soft” science (i.e., social
psychology), this is because psychology is a wide and varied discipline that in
different topic areas it is both.

Friday, July 18, 2014

Important Note:
This blog is a commentary about mandatory reporting laws in the US as they may
apply to child maltreatment. Mandated reporting laws in the US are
state-by-state and too critical for any blog to offer conclusive advice to a
wide audience. Professionals might have reporting duties contrary to this
discussion or beyond the scope of this opinion piece (e.g. vulnerable adults or
Tarasoff
duties). Individuals should determine what the reporting requirements
are in their respective jurisdictions, and comply with them accordingly.

When a mandated reporter receives
credible information about criminal sexual conduct involving a child, reporting
child sexual abuse may be an easy call. But those cases are the
exception. Professionals often encounter ambiguous information about
inappropriate sexual conduct, including non-contact sexual behaviors. In
many cases, a report to child protective services (CPS) is not actually
“mandatory.” When in doubt, why not just make a report, to be on
the “safe side?” Because for licensed mental health professionals with privileged communication,
there is no “safe side.” When a client has a privileged relationship with a
psychotherapist, all information that is not subject to reporting is protected
by laws and ethics of client privacy. There is not much ground in
between.

Despite the good intentions behind
mandated reporting, there are competing concerns and legitimate controversies
around mandated reporting, under both US and Canadian
laws. The US, Canada, Australia, and many other countries have some
form of mandatory
reporting. Mandated reporters typically include teachers, mental
health professionals, social workers, law enforcement, health care workers, and
child care providers, among others. In the US,
48 states have mandatory reporting laws that require specific professionals
to report suspected child maltreatment. As of 2012, 18
US states require everyone to report suspected child maltreatment.

When a privileged relationship exists,
professionals need to consider whether their first duty is to client privacy
and confidentiality, or to mandatory reporting. Breaking client privacy,
even with legal
justification, is likely to be detrimental to the therapeutic relationship.
The decision to report, or not report maltreatment can be life-altering
for children and for clients. For professionals, an errant decision, in
either direction, can have far-reaching consequences for many individuals, including
themselves.

Privileged
Communication and Mandatory Reporting

Physicians, clergy, psychotherapists,
chemical dependency counselors, and others with privileged communication
advance the public interest of providing professional expertise to society –
making confidential services available to individuals who might not seek
professional help for fear of reprisals. The precepts of privileged
communication are established by a combination of laws and professional ethics
that seek a balanced outcome that both helps individual clients and serves the
public interest. Sometimes the balance is tenuous, but privileged
communication is essential to many professional relationships.

When mandated reporters do not have
privileged communication, mandatory reporting is often straight forward, and as
long as individuals report in good faith, there’s little risk to
reporters. But confidentiality is foundational in most therapeutic
relationships and therefore privileged communication is essential. As a
result, most licensed mental health professionals generally do have a privileged
relationship with clients. The US Supreme Court affirmed psychotherapist‐patient
privilege in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996). The requirements
of this privilege are: (1) the communications must be confidential, (2) the
therapist must be a licensed psychotherapist, and (3) the communications must
occur in the course of diagnosis or treatment (Mitrevski, 2006).

Some might view mandatory reporting as a
moral responsibility, but when one is operating under the auspices of a
professional license, they must understand the obligations and the limits of
relevant laws and professional ethics. The same set of laws and
professional ethics that extend privileged communication to licensed mental
health professions, also establish the requirements of mandatory
reporting. Professionals often learn about client conduct that
ranges from sordid to illegal. There are very few cases where
licensed mental health professionals may violate privileged
communication. Mandatory reporting is one exception, and clients should
be forewarned. Because clients don’t share in the decision, and the
outcome of a mandated report may be life-changing for clients, therapists must
not get reporting wrong.

When confidentiality attaches to a
professional relationship, privileged information belongs to the client.
Clients need not invoke the right. Mental health professionals have legal and
ethical responsibilities to zealously protect
privileged communication with their clients, even in forensic settings.
Regardless of whether clients understand their rights to privileged communication,
therapists should respect and maintain both privileged communication and data
privacy unless clients specifically waive those rights.

Who is the
Subject of Mandated Reports?

Perhaps the most common confusion about
mandatory reporting is not understanding who is the subject of a
child maltreatment report. Generally, the subject is not the
alleged abuser but rather a specific child (or children) who may have been
abused or neglected, might be in a harmful situation, or otherwise meet a statutory
definition for reporting maltreatment. There are two important
considerations: (1) in most states, reporting laws are predicated on
suspected maltreatment by a parent, care provider, or someone in a position of
authority; and (2) reporting requirements depend on whether suspected
maltreatment is current or historical. In
keeping with these general guidelines, reporting laws in the US vary
by state.

Sexual
Offenders and Mandatory Reporting

In providing treatment to those who have
sexually offended, psychotherapists might be the first to discover new child
victims. When victims can be identified and CPS can be directed to them,
there is little doubt about a professional’s duty to abused children. It
is the indistinct cases of child maltreatment that frequently create
professional hazards for therapists. These circumstances can occur
repeatedly within sexual offender treatment settings because clients are
typically expected to disclose their entire sexual history, including not only
all victims, but in some cases every
sexual transgression going back to puberty. This exhaustive inventory
can be a minefield for both clients and therapists – and for mandatory
reporting.

Sexual offenders in treatment may lose
privileged communication, either by court order or by being frightened,
confused, or coerced into signing away their privacy rights through consents or
a release of information. One way that clients often unwittingly forfeit
their rights to privileged communication is through the compulsory use of the
polygraph – ostensibly for treatment purposes. Such use is banned in
Canada, but is popular in the US because of the “utility value” – getting
clients to reveal victims or disclose other sexual misbehavior. If
privileged communication does not attach, such disclosures are at the peril of
clients.

When privileged communication is
forfeited, treatment disclosures (not necessarily criminal) can carry
significant risks to clients. Certain disclosures can lead to
extensions of treatment, probation consequences, arrest, new charges, additional
incarceration, lifetime sex offender registration, public notification,
residency restrictions, and perhaps even sensationalizing by media
attention. Information that clients reveal which is unprotected may
contribute to a dossier for civil commitment. Dancing around such
disclosures creates a treatment
paradox for both clients and therapists. Always looming in the
background is mandated reporting.

The disclosure of unreported victims is
a perilous process for both clients and their therapists. If clients
believe full disclosures could result in additional penalties or criminal
consequences, there is a colossal disincentive to disclose unknown victims.
Obviously, there are few areas of sexual offender treatment that present
a greater dilemma for clients and therapists. But it is not without
precedence. Many professionals with privileged communication must
reconcile conflicting ethical, moral, and legal responsibilities. With
few exceptions, the first duty for licensed psychotherapists is to the client
sitting in the room.

If therapists need to report suspected
maltreatment, write an assessment report, document progress in therapy or
compliance with treatment requirements, disclosing more information about the
client than is necessary to fulfill specific purposes is likely to be a
violation of privileged communication.

Child
Pornography and Mandatory Reporting

The use of real children in the
production of child pornography (CP) is clearly child abuse. As offensive
as CP or pornography (broadly) is to many people, knowing that someone has
viewed CP is not likely to be a mandated report. Most CP depicts children
whose identities are not known to either the viewer or the reporter. If a
child victim in CP is perhaps in another country, local CPS would not have
jurisdiction. Understanding that the subject of a maltreatment report is
not the accused, a mandated report for CP typically does not make it past the
thresholds of an identifiable child to which services can be directed.

There are some disclosures of CP by a
client that could indicate a mandated report. An obvious example would be
a known minor being involved in the production of CP. Adults
allowing young children to knowingly view pornography might also be reportable.
A teenager viewing porn on the Internet or looking at sexually
explicit images on a smart device typically does not constitute maltreatment of
a minor. Children involved in sexting with other minors might be illegal,
but generally is not maltreatment of a child. While a case could be made
that sexting by a minor is the “production and distribution of CP,” if it does
not involve participation by an adult caretaker, it illustrates the need for
reporters to use professional judgment.

If a client begins to disclose
involvement with CP, it might be wise for professionals to interrupt and advise
clients that there are limits to privileged communication, and that mandated
reporting might apply to certain disclosures. Bottom line, there are very
few circumstances in which clients viewing CP requires mandated reporting.

Mandatory
Reporting and Preserving Families

In about nine out of ten cases of child
sexual abuse the abuser is a family member, relative, friend, or
acquaintance. When sexual abuse has already been identified and reported,
often psychotherapists are already working with a family. As a result, a
therapist may be the point person on new allegations of child sexual
abuse. Professionals uncovering sexual abuse may have a sudden and urgent
duty to many parties. When this happens, mandatory reporting is not in
question, but psychotherapists should also recognize the unique opportunity to
support clients and their families in working with CPS.

When skilled professionals have an
established therapeutic relationship with a family, and new information about
child abuse is discovered, therapists may be in a unique position to quickly
ascertain the nature and extent of abuse, know the vulnerabilities of victims
(and potential victims), be aware of salient risk factors, and facilitate an
immediate safety plan that considers all factors. Some CPS workers might
argue that this is the domain of CPS, though experienced CPS workers usually
welcome such a professional collaboration. While reporters typically have
to defer to directives from CPS, the most frequent outcome of many cases of
substantiated child maltreatment is for the victim and family to be connected
with a psychotherapist who has the expertise to address presenting
problems. When a skilled professional is already in place, the outcome of
mandated reporting might very well come full circle.

Professionals should understand that not
only sexual abuse, but its revelation, can tear at the fabric of families in
different ways. Often it is not the sexual abuse itself from which
victims, offenders, or their families might never recover; sometimes the
aftermath causes secondary abuse – unnecessary disruptions to the stability and
strengths of the family. Public policies should support a comprehensive,
balanced approach to both primary and secondary prevention of child sexual
abuse, to mitigate counterproductive consequences to victims and offenders, and
whenever possible, support the preservation of families (Finkelhor, 2009).

Depending on who the abuser is, parents
typically have the right and responsibility to be the “first responder” when it
comes to protecting their children. The right for government to interfere
with parental rights is predicated on evidence that parents have failed to
protect their children. Even when an intervention is obvious and
urgent, the solution might be to support a non-abusing parent(s) by marshaling
appropriate resources to help ensure safety for their kids.

The arts and science of the treatment of
victims and sexual abusers have the capabilities of helping most families to
recover from the damage of sexual abuse. Child victims often have a
greater capacity than adults to forgive abusers. In all but the most
severe cases of child maltreatment, children should not have to choose between
the fear of being abused and the fear of losing otherwise valued relationships.
When family preservation is in the best interest of children, it is very
empowering to victims, even children, for adults to ask them how we can support
them, and let victims help guide their own recovery. Supporting abused
children in this manner is not only empowering, it can help restore a child’s
trust in others, preserve families, build resiliency, and help turn victims
into survivors.

“Children
should not have to choose between the fear of being abused and the fear of
losing otherwise valued relationships.”

Summary,
Suggestions, and Recommendations

The potential consequences for failure
to report suspected child abuse is so unnerving for most professionals that
there is a tendency to err on “the safe side” and report.
Hopefully, it is clear that there is no “safe side.” It would be nice if
there were a decision tree for mandated reporting, but reporting laws vary too
much by jurisdiction. There are, however, some basic tenets of
therapeutic relationships that might be helpful: professionals need to be
aware of the jurisdictional nature of mandated reporting, they need to know
their duties to client privacy, they must always be mindful of fiduciary
responsibilities to clients, victims, and public
safety, and be comfortable that therapists are not an arm of law
enforcement.

It is not lost on this author that there
are some circumstances of child maltreatment that are so grave and urgent that
mandatory reporting is not a question. If dire circumstances warrant, the
first phone call should not be to CPS; it should go to 911.

Because mandated reporting laws are
jurisdictional, professionals might first consult colleagues about local
requirements for mandated reporting, and the tenets of privileged
communications within their profession. If after consulting colleagues,
professionals are still in doubt, they might be wise to consult with local
CPS. Without the need to initially disclose identifying information about
the client, CPS workers are usually glad to advise whether a report is
required. As a former CPS social worker, I recommend that professionals
who might be frequent reporters get to know one or more of the investigators
who screen cases at your local CPS. Not only are most CPS workers glad to
educate colleagues, they want to work with other professionals to get reporting
right, and direct appropriate services where indicated.

As a final recommendation, when
consulting with a CPS worker, keep a record of the conversation, including the
date, time, specifics of the query, the name of the CPS person consulted, and
the advice provided. Such information may serve the dual purpose of a
written report to CPS, which is required in some states. It is not likely
that CPS can assuage moral pangs about reporting decisions that are not
intuitive, but when it comes to a directive on whether a report is mandated in
a specific jurisdiction, local child protective services is golden.

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

One of the biggest issues in sexual violence
research, especially child sexual abuse research, is the lack of a coherent
baseline. We read research like David Finklehor’s telling us that sexual abuse
is, statistically, on the decrease (NY
Times) while at the same time we are confronted with ever increasing media
stories about the escalation of the reporting and unearthing of sexual violence
cases.The fact that sexual abuse has
been under reported and under recorded historically, although this is starting
to change in recent years (NSPCC),
means that we never really, accurately,know whether there has been an increase or decrease in recent years.
This is stated even with the proviso that there are other data capture
techniques which can be used in conjunction with police recording including,
medical reports, social work reports and school reporting.Hence, it difficult to truly get to grips
with the nature, extent and reality of sexual violence in modern society and
that is just focusing on westernised and developed countries, never mind
developing nations. This knowledge vacuum has been, in part, replaced or supplemented
with soft, experiential evidence provided in large part by the media, especially
the television and print press. The ever increasing reporting of sexual abuse
cases, particularly child sexual abuse cases, results in an ipso facto understanding, especially
among the public and politicians, that there is more offending; for if
offending was not increasing then there would be nothing to report? However,
this is not necessarily the case, for as Greer & Reiner (2012) state the
media can often misrepresent the abnormal as normal, therefore in their over
reporting of unique cases they give the impression that there is more
offending. Child sexual Abuse is a particularly potent case of this as it meets
all the core components of newsworthiness generally containing, either,
(1) a visible/spectacular act, (2) graphic presentation, (3) deviance, (4)
sexual/political factors, or (5) individual pathology (Chinball, 1977).The lack of a sexual violence baseline
and issues in media reporting reach almost perfect storm portions with
celebrity sexual offending.

In recent years, especially the last 10 years or so,
there has been an onslaught in the reporting of, recording of and high profile
media discussion of celebrity sexual abuse cases, on both sides of the
Atlantic. It seems that since the Michael
Jackson and Gary
Glitter (Paul Gadd) cases in the late 90’s/early 2000’s there has been an
increase in the reporting of sexual abuse by celebrities, historical and
current, with a flood gate being opened. In the USA the big cases of Late has
been the Jerry Sandusky, Steubenville, OH,
and the Duke
Lacrosse team, where in the UK there has been a number of historical
(Jimmy
Savile; Rolf
Harris; Stuart
Hall) and contemporary (Ian
Watkins)individual perpetrator cases
as well as the suggestion of a cover up of sexual
abuse by members of the government. This raises an important question,
relating to media coverage and the lack of a baseline, has there actually been
an increase in the rates of sexual abuse by celebrities or is it just that
victims feel better able to report and police forces feel more confident to
pursue these cases?This piece will now
discuss the central parts of the argument in turn,

(Sexual) Abuse by celebrities: There is
no reason to believe that celebrities would be any more or any less susceptible
to being perpetrators of sexual violence comparable to the ordinary members of
the public from whence they came. However, what we do know is that celebrity is
often linked with cognitive distortions, aspects or narcissism; where often
times there whims maybe more likely to be catered to and aspects of
transgressive behaviour (i.e., drugs, sexual promiscuity, minor offences, etc)
either facilitated or tolerated. This means that being a celebrity can result
in the person being treated differently than a “normal” non-celebrity
individual. In addition, we know that “celebrity” sells papers and that there
will be increased and in depth reporting of celebrity sexual abuse scandals.

Celebrity Culture and Celebrity worship:
One of the big questions surrounding celebrity is why should we trust celebrities
more than other people? Research has shown that Celebrity status holds a particular
sway in modern society (McQuail, 2010). McCutcheon, Lange and Houran (2002)
developed the “absorption–addiction” model of celebrity worship which consists
of three levels;

1.“Entertainment–Social” – whereby the individual
discusses the behavior and attitudes of their favorite celebrity, this is a low
level form of worship that is ultimately social and non-problematic.

2.“Intense–Personal” – whereby the individual
consistently thinks about their favorite celebrity, even at inopportune times,
and this is an intermediate level of celebrity worship.

3.“Borderline-Pathological” - whereby the
individual is completely infatuated with their favorite celebrity and would do
anything that they asked them to do. This is an extreme version of celebrity
worship.

Additional
research by North & Hargreves (2006) identified a fourth factor,

4.“Deleterious Imitation” – whereby the
individual is completely infatuated with their favorite celebrity and would go
as far to mirror all their behaviors, including their illegal and transgressive
ones. This, again, is an extreme version of celebrity worship.

Maltby
et al’s research (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007) goes on to state that there is
a relationship between celebrity worship, especially extreme celebrity worship,
and mental illness. Individuals with tendencies towards extreme celebrity
worship have been shown to have higher levels of vulnerability, personality
problems, anxiety disorders, self harm and suicide. Which ties into issues
surrounding celebrity and sexual abuse, for as we know vulnerable individuals
are more likely to be targeted by sexual abusers, more susceptible to grooming
and less likely to report abuse, especially in cases of child sexual abuse
(Harrison, 2010). This becomes more problematic in regard to the reporting of
these cases by victims because the victims who may report can be, certainly
historically and less so now, be seen as problematic and unreliable witnesses by
the police because of their vulnerabilities. The Ian Watkins case crystallized
these issues with a series of unreliable witnesses (an
ex-girlfriend who was a prostitute) as well as dedicated and obsessed
vulnerable fans who where co-conspirators
to his abuse who where in fact groomed and manipulated by him. The
participation of vulnerable fans in abusive practices, although condemned by
the press and the public (see
the article and message boardresponses
below), ties in with research indicating that extreme celebrity worship,
vulnerability and potential for delinquency all tie together (Sheridan, North,
Maltby & Gillett, 2007).

Policing & celebrity sexual abuse:
One of the main questions which has arisen as a result of the perceived
increases in celebrity sexual abuse cases is the role of the police
investigation. This is particularly salient in cases where the police are
seeing to be complacent, complicit or absent from these cases. If you look at
two cases from the UK (Jimmy Savile and Ian Watkins) you see evidence of a lack
of police follow through at times, whereby people will report instances of
abuse or suspensions to the police and they have not followed this up properly.
In the Jimmy Savile investigation this lack of follow through can be explained,
in part, by the societal attitudes to sexual abused at the time, Savile’s
status as a celebrity with power and influence (i.e., closely tied to the
establishment with high profile public supporters including high ranking police
officers) and his personality all of which can been seen to intimate and
dissuade investigations (Erooga, 2013). Over time, especially since the 60’s
and 70’s, policing has changed and improved; however, the recent Ian Watkins
case highlights that there are still issues with evidence indicating numbers
reports to the police over a period of time and problematic online behaviour in
open internet forums, which has resulted in an IPCC
investigation into three police forces . There needs to be an open culture
surrounding the policing of celebrity transgression, whether it is minor or
serious, with police forces not being afraid to make difficult decisions, but
as always these need to be based on evidence because false allegations can be
as damaging as real ones (i.e., Michael
Le Vell).

The recent high profile discussions of celebrity
sexual abuse are important conversations to have, but we need to have them in
the context of the role of celebrity in society, vulnerability amongst victims
of this abuse and how to better prevent this abuse; how do we realistic manage
and respond to celebrity in the culture of celebrity that we live in? The one
thing that we need to be careful of is knee jerk political and public reaction,
especially in terms of policy for as we have seen in the past with sex offender
disclosure and now with anti-pornography
legislation, this needs to be coherently through through.

Monday, July 7, 2014

After several years at the helm of sajrt.blogspot.com, I will be relinquishing my role as the Chief Blogger. Keeping on top of things as a blogger can be a challenging endeavor under the best of circumstances, but my professional work beyond the blog has now grown to the point where I no longer believe I can do the blog justice.

Effective immediately, I am passing the reins to Dr. Kieran McCartan of the University of the West of England in Bristol, UK. Kieran is an energetic professional with strong convictions -- two qualities important in a blogger. He is also an ATSA member who has made significant contributions to that organization (and its sister organization NOTA).

Staying on as Associate Bloggers will be David Prescott and Jon Brandt. They have both added immeasurably to the blog's readership and coverage of the issues. From time to time, I may also have opportunities to chime in.

So, while I am bittersweet about moving on, Kieran and crew have my full respect, admiration, and confidence that they will continue to grow sajrt.blogspot.com into a site of significance in the prevention of sexual abuse.

Kieran McCartan, PhD

Chief Blogger

David Prescott, LICSW

Associate blogger

Translate

The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (http://atsa.com/) is an international, multi-disciplinary organization dedicated to preventing sexual abuse. Through research, education, and shared learning ATSA promotes evidence based practice, public policy and community strategies that lead to the effective assessment, treatment and management of individuals who have sexually abused or are risk to abuse.

The views expressed on this blog are of the bloggers and are not necessarily those of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, or Sage Journals.

Disclaimer

ATSA does not endorse, support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any Content posted. ATSA does not necessarily or automatically endorse any opinions expressed within this blog. You understand that by reading this blog, you may be exposed to content or opinions that might be offensive, harmful, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate. Under no circumstances will ATSA be liable in any way for any Content, including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in any Content, or any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any Content or opinions posted, emailed, transmitted, or otherwise made available via this blog.